Athletics Nation: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:

Around SBN: Race to the BCS: rankings, in-game scores & blogs Bar-right-arrows

The Myth Of The 9 Hattebergs

Goat_tiny by Nico on in News

When the A’s unveiled the shocking news that a lineup of 9 Scott Hattebergs would outscore the 1927 Yankees, cure leprosy, feed the world’s homeless, and likely make Scott Hatteberg rather wealthy if not a bit tired, this was a revolutionary concept. Hatteberg was not a household name, and yet due to his above-average ability not to make outs he became the poster boy for an idea that was truly ground-breaking. And not really true.

For the purposes of this post, a “Scott Hatteberg” is a .280 hitter with a .374 OBP and .433 slugging percentage, which is what Hatteberg produced in the 2002 season Moneyball references to claim a lineup of 9 Hattebergs would have outscored every team in the league that year.

It’s a cute concept, but here are the problems, as I see it, with the premise—and with the A’s offense, even today:

  • 9 Hattebergs will go station-to-station most of the time, meaning that in any inning in which you do not get an extra-base hit you need three successful at-bats, before three outs, in order to score. But wait, they can’t come in just any sequence, because while BB, BB, single will probably score a run, BB, single, BB won’t. You actually need three successful at-bats in which the last one is a hit, and if you do the math you’ll find that .280 hitters who make outs 62.6% of the time will get a lot of runners on base, and will leave a lot of runners on base, but will not score that many runs. Sound familiar?

Now make Hatteberg fast, with the same stats, and you’re in business, because through steals and first-to-third jaunts you significantly increase the chance of scoring with just two “non out” at-bats, which dramatically increases your chances of scoring (the odds of two BBs or hits in an inning are far more than the odds of three BBs or hits in an inning —approximately twice as good, if my computations are correct).

  • If your lineup is full of base-stealers, what happens when Mark Buehrle and his terrific pick-off move are on the mound? If your lineup is full of HR hitters, what happens when Brandon Webb and his power-sinker are on the mound?

A lineup of 9 Hattebergs will excel against “Hatteberg-friendly” pitchers (pitchers with spotty command, etc.), but will struggle against all “Hatteberg-unfriendly” pitchers, because a lineup of 9 Hattebergs has no Plan B to turn to against a Carlos Silva, who throws a ton of strikes, or a Derek Lowe, who doesn’t give up a lot of hits or walks but also cannot shut down the running game. This would lead to the team scoring a ton of runs occasionally but also getting shut down far too often. Sound familiar?

See, when your lineup includes a high-average hitter, a power hitter, a good contact hitter, a base-stealer, a patient hitter, and so on, you have a variety of weapons against a variety of pitchers, something a lineup of 9 clones can never provide.

This brings to me the 2007 Oakland A’s, whose lineup is eerily close to 9 Hattebergs. They have a Hatteberg protégé (Johnson), a hitter having a very Hatteberg-like season (Nick Swisher), a hitter who is Hatteberg with power (Cust),  hitter who is Hatteberg with average (Stewart), a hitter who has regressed into a poor man’s Hatteberg (Chavez), a hitter (Ellis) whose average and power remind one of…Hatteberg…

Obviously, one of the 2007 A’s problems is that they aren’t hitting .280 as a team, aren’t reaching base at a .374 clip, and aren’t slugging .433. But I think that even if they were, they would find that without speed, without balance, without versatility, they would do a lot of what they’re doing a lot of now: getting guys on and getting guys over--but not getting them in.

0 recs | Comment 176 comments

Read Related

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Anti-Moneyball Rant

While I agree that the inability to hit with runners in scoring position is maddening, I think that you aren't attacking the true problem with this offense.  After reviewing the stats the A's had appx 1500 plate appearance with the following OBP:

Kotsay .299
Crosby .278
Kendall .261
Scutaro..305
Chavez...306

The 1927 Yankees would be dragged down by these type performances.  The DJs and Stewarts of the world just don't have the ability to pull the dregs of this team.  

I think it is imperative for 08 that the A's find a replacement for Kotsay, Crosby and Scutaro.  The A's are stuck with Chavez and hopefully everyone could recalibrate their expectations(7th hitter with some pop and good but not great defense).  I would love to see Murphy get the Scutaro role.  He is younger, cheaper and provides more upside.

by DKNJ on Aug 3, 2007 9:02 AM PDT   0 recs

I realize that the comparison isn't apt,

DKNJ, because these A's don't have sufficiently Hatteberg-esque stats. But my real thesis is the claim that if all the players were hitting .280, with .374 OBPs, and had Hatteberg's speed and power, they would still be far from the top in run production because of the station-to-station problem (the need for too many "non outs" in an inning), and the inability to adjust to a high percentage of opposing pitchers.

That's really my point--that an offense with some Hattebergs in it does BETTER with a Figgins getting on base only 1/3 of the time but being a far more productive baserunner than with yet another Hatteberg protege "knowing the strike zone" and singling a fair (but not exceptional) amount of the time.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Aug 3, 2007 9:48 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

If that is your point, you don't make it well

Because you put the "sabermetricians" on the defensive by making light of them by saying they have cute concepts.  

You could have said, "While a 9 Hatteberg Offense would beat the 27 Yanks, perhaps, an 8 Hatteberg Offense with a Figgins at the top would beat them by even more".  

This wouldn't start a flaming thread though and a straw man battle between two sides that don't really disagree but need something to do during a lame duck season.

Lame indeed.

by The Hypocrite on Aug 3, 2007 1:28 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

+1
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05

by xbhaskarx on Aug 3, 2007 12:18 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Chavez

Can we convince the Dodgers or Padres that Chavez just needs a change of scenery?  

by Colorado Fan on Aug 3, 2007 3:47 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Send Chavez

to Chavez Ravine!!

Green Hulk Fists

by oaklandSMASH on Aug 3, 2007 4:48 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

great post

I agree, the A’s need more then "clone" players.  Look at the Halos, I know we don’t want to, they are built really well.  They have speed, guys who can handle the bat, and a power hitter who can take any pitch out (see last night).  Once again the A’s can not get runners in from third with less then two outs, because they have the same "type" of player coming to the plate every time.  Unlike some, I honestly believe the certain hitters are made for hitting people in, the last year proves the to be true, we have NONE of them.  Swisher could be one if he was not busy trying to hit it out of the yard every at bat.  Oh well, at least the serve beer at the games, I will have that to look forward to this weekend..

by Tankbark on Aug 3, 2007 9:08 AM PDT   0 recs

They have a good farm system,

unlike us.

On Sunday, Minaya ticked off a list of candidates to join the rotation, and for once this season, none of them was Jose Lima.

by rfloh on Aug 3, 2007 2:21 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

The myth of the myth of the 9 Hattebergs

This is essentially the same post you made a couple of days ago. It was wrong then, and it's wrong now. (And the rhetorical trick of suggesting that Stewart and Cust, two of the most dissimilar hitters I can imagine, are both just like Hatteberg, adds a level of absurdity to it.)

The problem with our offense has nothing to do with the type of hitters we have. It's actually much simpler than that. Our best hitters, whether they're the walks/strikeout/HRs types (Swisher, Cust, and when he's healthy Chavez), the high-average power-deprived types that you seem to covet (Stewart and Piazza), or something in between (Buck, Ellis) are merely decent. At best a little above average for their positions.

Meanwhile, our production from SS (a combined .219/.280/.340) catcher (combined .225/.276/.292), CF (.231/.299/.319) when Kotsay's there , and 3B when Scutaro (.240/.305/.341) is there would make both Bill James and Joe Morgan sick.

Five or six good-but-not-great hitters, plus three or four terrible ones is going to add up to terrible. No amount of magical clutchness is going to change that, nor is moving the runners. And pointing the finger at Cust and Swisher, who have been our most productive hitters by any standard, is liable to make things worse.

Just face it: a preference for speed over power, for Ichiro over Adam Dunn, is purely aesthetic.

Maybe the dark is from your eyes.

by andeux on Aug 3, 2007 9:46 AM PDT   0 recs

Honestly, I don't think you could have

missed my main points any more. If we had lots of speed but no power, I'd prefer power. I realize the "stat wonks" will never accept that a worse player that provides more balance and versatility can be more useful than a better player that provides more of what you already have, but that's why games aren't won and lost on paper.

Just curious, which player do you think would help this current A's lineup more if inserted the rest of the way:

Figgins, hitting .280 with a .333 OBP and 2 HRs, or Trot Nixon, hitting .260 with a .360 OBP and 5 HRs?

It's not a trick question; I'm just curious.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Aug 3, 2007 9:57 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Call me a "stat wonk" if it makes you feel better

but I don't accept what you're saying because there's no real evidence that it's true (and plenty that it isn't).

To answer your question: the short answer is that, yes, strictly as a hitter in this lineup, I would take Nixon over Figgins (based on career numbers, or your hypotheticals) in a heartbeat. The longer answer is that there are several caveats unrelated to your point that might make me prefer Figgins as a complete player:

  1. Nixon is really a platoon player with huge L/R splits for his career.
  1. Figgins has a lot of defensive versatility (though he doesn't play any position particularly well), which certainly has value, especially on a team with chronically injured players at 3B and CF. I would love to have him instead of Scutaro.
  1. Nixon's power, which is a lot of his value, seems to be evaporating in the last couple of years.

And incidentally, calling Figgins "Scott Hatteberg with speed" would be a more apt comparison than some of the other ones you made.

Maybe the dark is from your eyes.

by andeux on Aug 3, 2007 10:11 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Let me give the Cliff's Notes version

of my post:

  • I am not suggesting that the current A's lineup is similar to a lineup of 9 2002 Hattebergs.
  • I am suggesting that independent of the greater problem of not having enough hitting talent, the current A's lineup also lacks a range of talents--which could help to offset the talent deficiency.
  • I am suggesting that a lineup of 9 Hattebergs would in fact be too dependent on having three successful ABs to score in an inning.
  • I am suggesting that the A's organizational philosophy has the flaw of being designed apparently to score a fair number of runs but is designed, in fact, to leave a lot of runners on base (for reasons outlined in bullets 2 & 3).
  • I am suggesting that Scott Hatteberg, if cloned enough, could cure leprosy.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Aug 3, 2007 10:26 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Understood

But I still disagree, and believe your preference for speedy types is mostly aesthetic. Which is understandable; I probably wouldn't especially want to watch a lineup of 9 Hattebergs either.

If we want to be less reliant on long rallies to score runs, more power would be a greater help than more speed. To my eyes, Stewart and Piazza are walking advertisements for just how overrated batting average still is. The .300 averages are nice, but are offset by inadequate power for LF/DH, and I'd rather have Cust in there every day, strikeouts and all. Your eyes apparently see otherwise.

Maybe the dark is from your eyes.

by andeux on Aug 3, 2007 10:49 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I guess I'd like to see

Stewart, and Swisher and Cust, and Runny McSpeedster. I think Johnson is the epitome of redundancy, and that Swisher is the 1Bman the A's need, replaced by an OF who is a true lead-off hitter.

Give me a guy who turns singles into doubles, and goes first-to-third like clockwork, to balance the Stewarts and Custs, and I'm a happy man. Now we can beat more pitchers more consistently more ways, and our LOBs go down--because more of them get converted to runs.

Example of my frustration: We dealt a valuable commodity--a good starting pitcher--in Lilly and acquired a slow, patient, part-time player. For Lilly, we could have gotten a part-time player who was complementary, not redundant, with what we have ad nauseum. But we don't go after guys with speed if they lack the "requisite" knowledge of the strike zone, patience, etc. Except Payton--whom I think the A's miss, low OBP and all.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Aug 3, 2007 11:04 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Nico, I found the perfect player for you...

forget nine 2002 Hattebergs.  How about cloning nine of this guy and putting that team on the field:

Hits  Runs  2B  3B   HR  RBI  SB   AVG  OBP  SLG
133    67    21   7    16   61   27   .308  .371  .500

Your perfect combination of speed and power!!!  Now, that team would outscore the 1927 Yanks, no doubt.

These friggin' unclutch losers will never, ever win another game! Ever!

by FoolshGame22 on Aug 3, 2007 1:06 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Assuming that's Byrnes

You'll have the catcher diving into the bullpen to catch foul balls.

He's not going to try to kill you, I'm just going to try to doink you. -Rex Hudler

by JediLeroy on Aug 3, 2007 3:12 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Assuming that's Byrnes

You'll have the catcher taking circuitous routes to catch fastballs right down the middle.

I'm not throwing in the towel, but I'm using it to wipe the sweat off my face and enjoy the rest of the season. ~ oaklandSMASH @('.')@

by monkeyball on Aug 3, 2007 3:17 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

but, still catch them...

you see, or maybe you don't, Byrnes' Zone Rating has been better than Kotsay's the last two years.  In other words, he's a better defender.

These friggin' unclutch losers will never, ever win another game! Ever!

by FoolshGame22 on Aug 3, 2007 11:33 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

remember, if you get too Runny, then you have ...

... Nacho Runs.

I'm not throwing in the towel, but I'm using it to wipe the sweat off my face and enjoy the rest of the season. ~ oaklandSMASH @('.')@

by monkeyball on Aug 3, 2007 1:46 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

The A's
have good news in that finding upgrades for CA, CF and SS will be extremely easy.  They need to cut Kotsay, Crosby and Scutaro though so that Geren isn't tempted to play them.  The bad news is that as mentioned the A's don't have a superstar in the lineup and instead have 3 B's and 2 B+s.  Superstars are very tough to find.

Nico...I like Figgins a lot more than Nixon.  His SBs and overall baserunning give him a ton of value.  To be fair though Figgins is probably one of the top 3 baserunners in the game(nice cherry picking for the argument).  I see your overall point, but the A's would get a much better return by just getting rid of the garbage.

by DKNJ on Aug 3, 2007 10:22 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Actually, I chose Figgins because historically

he ISN'T a cherry-picking choice--over his career he has often not gotten on base that much and he doesn't have great power. (In 2006, he hit .267/.336/.376 for an OPS of .712).

This year he is hitting .335--who knew? Probably not 29 other teams who could have signed him pretty cheap--but historically one of his problems was that he was a great baserunner...when he got on base.

And I think he'd have a been a PERFECT fit for the A's, who need at least one guy like him in the lineup and who could use a guy capable of filling in at 3B and CF...

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Aug 3, 2007 10:34 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

The problem

is that you are comparing figgins in his best year against a washed up nixon.  I guess my question to you is would you rather have Corey Patterson or Dave Dejesus.  

by DKNJ on Aug 3, 2007 10:42 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I gave them hypothetical stats,

rather than say "2007 version," so that it would be fair. Juan Pierre might be the best example in that his OBP and slugging are putrid, but his speed is superlative.

Yeah, THAT'S the guy I should have used. Pierre. My bad, since Figgins is having a career year. If the A's could have Hatteberg or Pierre, who would help them score runs better within the context of this current A's lineup?

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Aug 3, 2007 10:51 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Rickey

Let's end this argument by bringing back Rickey Henderson.

by AlBowe on Aug 3, 2007 1:27 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Better yet

Bring back nine Rickeys!  

"Ten times thy self were better than ten Hattebergs" -- Monkeyball, channeling Shakespeare

by iglew on Aug 3, 2007 2:12 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I like speed, I like Ichiro!

Juan Pierre sucks. Speed is pointless if a player doesn't use it well. Unlike Ichiro, Juan Pierre makes a very large amount of outs. Compare Pierre's CS and GIDP with Ichiro's.

Over his career, Pierre has made 3473 outs in 4992 PAs, an average of 0.6957 outs per PA. Scott Hatteberg has made 3129 outs in 4714 PAs, an average of 0.66376 outs per PA. Pierre's career OPS+ is 84, Hatteberg's 101. This means that adjusted for park, Hatteberg's career OPS is 27% better than Pierre's. Despite this, he makes fewer outs per PA than Pierre.

For comparison, Ichiro! has made 3159 outs in 4926 PAs, an average of 0.641 outs per PA. Ichiro's career OPS+ is 120.

On Sunday, Minaya ticked off a list of candidates to join the rotation, and for once this season, none of them was Jose Lima.

by rfloh on Aug 3, 2007 2:41 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

i agree with everything said here
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05

by xbhaskarx on Aug 3, 2007 12:20 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Your last sentence is so misinformed

it's absurd.  You can't state it in absolute terms like that.  Ichiro is a much better lead off hitter than Adam Dunn.  Put both Dunn and Ichiro in the A's and they score a lot more runs.  There needs to be balance in an offense.  You can't just throw out 9 Adam Dunns or 9 Jack Custs and expect to score runs.  You will when a home run is hit, but won't other than that very often.  There needs to be someone who can run the bases and all power and no speed will leave you with a poor offense, albeit probably better than the current A's offense.  And besides, Cust and Dunn struggle at the corner outfield positions.  I don't even want to imagine them trying to play center.
The preference for speed, at certain positions, is NOT purely aesthetic, it is the preference for an offense that scores runs.  Curtis Granderson, for example, is a great hitter, in part, because of the stress his running puts on defenses.  I don't see Jack Cust leading the league in triples any time soon.

by IndianaAsfan on Aug 3, 2007 12:36 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Granderson is a great hitter because he gets

on base a lot. Juan Pierre has a lot of speed, maybe we can get him on the A's cause he's so good at baseball!

by Dusty Baker on Aug 3, 2007 12:49 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

<trades jack cust

for scott podsednik>

A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05

by xbhaskarx on Aug 3, 2007 12:51 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Everything you say makes sense

until one actually starts thinking critically.

Maybe the dark is from your eyes.

by andeux on Aug 3, 2007 1:39 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

purely aesthetic

Some say they prefer speed over power, but would you choose the wind over the rainbow? For there can be no rainbow if there is not both rain and sun.

"Ten times thy self were better than ten Hattebergs" -- Monkeyball, channeling Shakespeare

by iglew on Aug 3, 2007 2:07 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Is that another crazy quote from Ichiro?
It's almost like winning twice when you beat the Angels." -- Milton Bradley

by Elvez on Aug 3, 2007 2:46 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Depends

If by "crazy quote" you mean "make up something that sounds funny", then yes.

"Ten times thy self were better than ten Hattebergs" -- Monkeyball, channeling Shakespeare

by iglew on Aug 3, 2007 2:59 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Ichiro! vs. Dunn

There was a discussion about the relative value of Ichiro's performance last season vs. Dunn's performance last season on BBTF recently.

The conclusion was that based on linear weights adjusted for park, combined with baserunning and defense, Ichiro! was clearly the better player. See posts 15, 22 & 40.

On Sunday, Minaya ticked off a list of candidates to join the rotation, and for once this season, none of them was Jose Lima.

by rfloh on Aug 3, 2007 2:54 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

but if i'm picking someone just on their offense,

it's Dunn every time.

I find your lack of Faith disturbing...

by rebus on Aug 3, 2007 3:08 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

The conclusion was that

using park adjusted linear weights, even without taking into account defense and baserunning, Ichiro! was better.

On Sunday, Minaya ticked off a list of candidates to join the rotation, and for once this season, none of them was Jose Lima.

by rfloh on Aug 3, 2007 3:13 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

yeah, i suppose park effects nullify

advantages Dunn has with the bat overall.

still, Ichiro's a one of a kind player who can manage a .380-.400 BABIP fairly consistently. I'd like to see a comparison between someone like Placido Polanco and Dunn, or something similar.

I find your lack of Faith disturbing...

by rebus on Aug 3, 2007 3:23 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Reading that seemed to indicate

that Ichiro is better just on offense. Plus, he's having a much better year this year than last year. I'd take Ichiro for offense.

by mikeA on Aug 3, 2007 3:14 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

"...would outscore the 1929 Yankees"

Sorry to be pedantic, but I think you mean the 1927 Yankees?  The A's, in fact, outscored the Yanks in 1929, and some consider it to be the greatest offesive team in history.  But most effete, eastern, Yankofiles still think the '27 Yanks were the greatest team ever all around.  Not Sports Illustrated though:

http://dynamic.si.cnn.com/si_online/...

This is important, and should be better known around here.

"You're born with two strikes against you, so don't take a third one on your own." -Connie Mack

by Filthyslurve on Aug 3, 2007 10:00 AM PDT   0 recs

I did mean 1927 and meant to correct it,

but forgot. The depression, great Yankees hitting team--easy to mix up if you equate the Yankees to depression, as I do.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Aug 3, 2007 10:14 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

thats right baby...

and the greatest MLB dynasty of all time would be the Athletics of the 1970's, as many have said.
Add to that the facts that had Finley not dismantled the team, Boston and their 1975 season would not have happened (although, who cares, they lost anyway) and without Jackson and Hunter, the Yankees of 1977 & 78 wouldnt have happened (then we would not be subjected to this Bronx is Burning crap)

tdwclark

by tdwclark on Aug 3, 2007 1:00 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

useful to note

that the A's never actually "unveiled" the speculation... rather their revolutionary concept was revealed by Michael Lewis.  It's funny because at that time it really was a myth, in the sense that it was a philosophy nearly completely ignored and /or denied by the insiders of baseball.  It really was a key aspect of the building of what I think was a truly great club, at a budget price.  With the publishing of the book, it became something that everyone but Joe Morgan had to pay attention to, and it also became the Achilles heel for the last generation of great A's teams- one which barely failed to achieve "immortality" in the playoffs.

by Brian in 317 on Aug 3, 2007 10:38 AM PDT   0 recs

Thing is, if your Hattebergesque players

are Uber-Hatties, like Giambi, rather than Hatty-wannabies, like Johnson...here's a shock...You'll do better!

But if you take it to the extreme, and believe that a lineup of guys who all hit .280/.374/.433, with no speed on the bases (and I mean this far beyond "basestealing"), would lead the league in runs scored...I'm not buying.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Aug 3, 2007 10:46 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Hatteberg,

despite poor speed, was (and apparently still is) a very good baserunner at things like going from first to third on a single, and tagging from first to second on deep fly balls.

And, to be clear, I don't really believe that a team of 9 Hattebergs would lead the league in runs scored. And I doubt that Beane or DePodesta thought that either, regardless of what Michael Lewis said. But they would be better than you seem to think.

Maybe the dark is from your eyes.

by andeux on Aug 3, 2007 11:00 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

i recall one game

not sure what year (maybe 2002?),,, I was at a game at the Coliseum against the Red Sox, and I was sitting next to a BoSox fan. When they announced the starting lineups, Hatteberg was hitting first for the A's. I turned to him, knowing he would remember Hat from his days as a catcher in Boston, and said "Did you ever think you'd see Scott Hatteberg hitting lead-off?"  It was such a bizarre concept to him he just shook his head and laughingly wheezed out an emphatic "No!"

Batting him leadoff was a truly extreme example of the Hat experiment, but the truth is Hatteberg was a great OB guy, and a heads up, though not speedy, baserunner in his days with the A's.

by Brian in 317 on Aug 3, 2007 11:16 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Right. And I'm not suggesting otherwise

It's not Hatteberg's fault that he can't go first to third on some basehits that Mike Cameron can speed to third on--Hatty maximizes what he has by being a smart baserunner, but has physical limitations. And a lineup with only players who had this limitation would suffer a station-to-station syndrome that you get with, say...Swisher, Cust, Johnson, Chavez, Kielty...lots of baserunners, lots of LOB...

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Aug 3, 2007 11:26 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I'm not arguing at all...

Nor do I agree with the Nine Hattys concept, though as a statistical model it was obviously a very useful measuring device for a poor team to glean some slight advantage.

by Brian in 317 on Aug 3, 2007 11:32 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

just like currently they use

Youkoulis (sp?)at leadoff...frickin red sox...if they win again, i will never watch baseball of any sort ever again

tdwclark

by tdwclark on Aug 3, 2007 1:02 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I disagree

Sooner or later the rest of the league would A) catch on and inflate the market price of these players, or B) the stats they put up will eventually take their payroll out of the organizations range...actually both did happen.  "The book" was outdated the second it hit the news stands....besides the idea of the book is different from the example the book gives to explain that idea.    

by Tankbark on Aug 3, 2007 10:57 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

i'm not sure

the book was outdated the second it hit the stands.  You're certainly right that ultimately baseball would have been unable to ignore emerging measuring concepts, but as far as I know, few or none had stat guys on the payroll before the book was published.  I think BB might have been a few more years ahead of the competition in this regard had the book not been published when it was.  

But as BB will now point out, the point is moot.  The Moneyball philosophy must ever change.  It now becomes a question of figuring out what is the current (relief pitching?), and what will be the next (girl's softball pitchers?) undervalued commodity.

by Brian in 317 on Aug 3, 2007 11:28 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Next time the A's have a good season

we need to have Joe Morgan write a book about it. Or at least dictate a book to someone who can write.

by scromulus on Aug 3, 2007 1:31 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Or "sign it" to someone who can speak eloquently

so they can dictate it to someone who can write.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Aug 3, 2007 2:04 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

.433 isn't great...

but does that equate to a guy who hits basically nothing but singles?

With 21 bombs in his rookie year, look for 42 jacks in '06, and 105 round trippers by 2009. - Baseball-Reference.Com

by NicksDreamy on Aug 3, 2007 10:44 AM PDT   0 recs

thank you

I've always been annoyed by the "nine Hattebergs" idea. Why would one want nine of any player, no matter how great? Baseball is a team sport and requires players with a diverse set of skills.

by OaklandSi on Aug 3, 2007 10:54 AM PDT   0 recs

Who do you pitch around?

No one! This is true for the hypothetical 9 2002 Hattebergs and the current line-up. When the opposition asks "who do we not let beat us?" the follow-up is probably silence or laughter. There is no challenging top or middle of the order that "softens" pitcher up for the  bottom of the order. How is this for a line-up with a "a range of talents"

R. Henderson
Lansford  
Canseco
Parker            
D. Henderson        
McGwire            
Steinbach          
Phillips            
Weiss              

By the time the pitcher get to 7-8-9 he feels like he has walked through a mine field.

by NoeValley on Aug 3, 2007 11:09 AM PDT   0 recs

<drool>
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Aug 3, 2007 11:14 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

nah

Those guys are too old even for the Giants.

Except for Rickey.

"San Jose A's of Fremont" is gauche

by ArakSOT on Aug 3, 2007 11:24 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Though Carney is currently

healthier than Chavy, and Weiss could outhit Croz today.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Aug 3, 2007 11:27 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

man, that was an awesome club

and thinking about losing TWICE in those three years just kills me.  That club should have been another 3-time winner...god, I hate baseball.  God, I want this team to win again!!!!!

tdwclark

by tdwclark on Aug 3, 2007 1:05 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

The LaRussa myth

Even he couldn't screw up the '89 series. George Will, and others in the media, annointed him a genius. Recently, post ASG, the Boston Globe's Bob Ryan flamed TLR on ESPN's The Sports Reporters. He asked how baseball made it through the first 80 years of the 20th century without TLR's "genius." He did not just cite his not pinch hitting Puljos.

by NoeValley on Aug 3, 2007 1:35 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Speed

Interesting post, Nico.  A few thoughts:

  1.  At times there's a need for speed.  Consider Dave Roberts stealing second and coming around with the tying run for the Sox in 2004.  Pure friggin' speed.  I know that that's perhaps the exception to the rule, and there's a difference between a truly elite speedster and a guy who's "pretty good" at it, but the point is worth making.
  1.  I'm sure someone has done this, so can anyone point me there:  has anyone tried to quantify the effect that having an elite base stealer on has on a pitcher's performance?  On the one hand, you have batter's giving up strikes by swinging at balls to "protect" the runner (I can't say that this one has ever made a lot of sense to me from a statistical standpoint), so that will likely improve the pitcher's stats.  However, it's hard not to believe, having watched pitchers deal with Rickey or Coleman or Brock, that their heads aren't getting messed with in a serious way, and in a way that diminishes their ability to pitch.  And of course there's the occasional wrongly called pitch-out to add to the hitter's count.  So, anyone have any data on this issue?
  1.  I like Nico's point about a certain diversity being necessary.  Once you get a good control pitcher, then you really need some guys who can confidently whack the ball without having controlled the count.  Orlando Cepeda and Vlad come to mind.

Good dialogue going on.  Thanks.  

by DiegoSegui on Aug 3, 2007 11:37 AM PDT   0 recs

I don't think "pitcher disruptedness"

has ever been quantified, and I don't know that it's quantifiable. Along with the variables you mention, there's also throwing more fastballs to give the catcher a better chance at the basestealer, and varying how long the pitcher stays set to throw off the runner's timing--but which also can throw off the pitcher's rhythm and concentration. Personally, I think it's significant but I'd be hard-pressed to prove it!

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Aug 3, 2007 12:07 PM PDT <